Karur stampede: Supreme Court questions HC bench’s jurisdiction, SIT formation; reserves order

NEW DELHI: From questioning the jurisdiction of the Madras High Court’s principal bench, the decision to conduct dozens of autopsies late in the night, and the reason for allowing TVK leader Vijay to hold the roadshow, the Supreme Court raised a series of pointed queries before reserving orders on the pleas that sought CBI or SC-monitored probe into the Karur stampede that claimed 41 lives on September 27.

Among the key points that the bench comprising Justice JK Maheshwari and Justice NV Anajaria raised was the jurisdiction of the High Court’s principal bench in Chennai to hear a matter related to an incident in Karur district, which falls under the Madurai bench. The top court also noted that the single judge in Chennai heard the matter, though a related petition was being heard by a division bench in Madurai.

"We are unable to understand how this order was passed. How did the single bench in the Chennai bench proceed with the matter when the division bench in Madurai was considering the matter? In my experience of over 15 years as a judge, a single bench holds back if the division bench has taken cognisance," Justice Maheshwari observed.

Appearing for TVK, senior advocate Gopal Subramanium said while the petition before the High Court only sought to frame a standard operating procedure (SOP) for political rallies, the court constituted the special investigation team (SIT) on the first day itself. Senior advocate CA Sundaram, another veteran lawyer who appeared for TVK, said the party was “wary of the State” and had a problem with an SIT comprising only officers from the State.

When the judge raised questions about the jurisdictional matters and wondered how the plea seeking formulation of an SOP led to an order to constitute an SIT, senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, who appeared for the Tamil Nadu government, said it was formed by the High Court and added that the government did not suggest any names. However, he added, the officers are known for their integrity and there was no reason to suspect their independence.

Justice Maheshwari also asked senior advocate and Rajya Sabha MP P Wilson why TVK was granted permission to hold the rally and also queried about conducting 30 autopsies within a few hours in the night, as claimed by one of the petitioners. Wilson submitted that the district collector allowed doctors to conduct postmortem examinations at night because kin of the victims were pleading with authorities for the bodies, and added that he would file a detailed affidavit after verifying the facts.

Wilson and senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, also appearing for the State, opposed the demand for a CBI probe.

While TVK sought an independent inquiry monitored by a retired SC judge, two BJP leaders filed pleas seeking a CBI probe. Paneerselvam, the father of a 10-year-old boy who died in the stampede, has also filed a petition.

The lawyers representing TVK told the apex court that the High Court's observations that TVK and Vijay abandoned the place and that they did not express remorse were wrong. They said the police forced the actor to leave the place on the ground that it would aggravate the situation.

Reserving the orders, the bench said, "We will pass appropriate orders. We will see what can be done."